4 ms·

> many of the people are arguing that it is inherently unjust to use certain things to make predictions, which makes no sense at all Would it be wrong to judge

> many of the people are arguing that it is inherently unjust to use certain things to make predictions, which makes no sense at all Would it be wrong to judge my creditworthiness by the fact I'm white and gay if you could find some correlation between those traits and bill paying habits? What if white gays were typically irresponsible with money† (because omg shoes) and as a consequence my credit score is forever (or at least initially) tarnished because I'm a white homo, irrespective of my bill-paying ability. I can see many ethical issues with this. > I don't think in practice many people will change their friends over this, and this is only one piece of information being used, so it probably wouldn't have a huge effect if they did so. LOL. People will do a lot in the name of money. If Ms. Sally wants a mortgage, like really, really, really bad, Ms. Sally is gonna drop her deadbeat Facebook friends and game the fuck out the system. If she's successful, not only is she more likely to be approved for that mortgage, but she'll get a better rate. I think it's naive to believe that any other behavior is being encouraged by this kind of predictive credit scoring. When people figure out how to game a system, they tend to do so. Such signals would quickly be rendered useless, unless you could effectively figure out who is gaming the system, and how hard. †I'm not advocating this idea.

Houshalter 13y ago
>Would it be wrong to judge my creditworthiness by the fact I'm white and gay if you could find some correlation between those traits and bill paying habits? What if white gays were typically irresponsible with money† (because omg shoes) and as a consequence my credit score is forever (or at least initially) tarnished because I'm a white homo, irrespective of my bill-paying ability. I can see many ethical issues with this. Yes it seems wrong, but why does it matter what the data is if it's being used to make more accurate predictions? That's the goal. The data being used makes no difference. We aren't talking about humans which are irrational and go "omg I hate gay people and want to make them worse off by refusing to do business with them", this is an unbiased computer algorithm looking to predict how likely you are to pay back your loan. If you really are less likely to pay back your loan than so be it. It can just as easily go the other way and judge in your favor. On average you should expect to benefit from such a policy, not lose from it. >LOL. People will do a lot in the name of money. If Ms. Sally wants a mortgage, like really, really, really bad, Ms. Sally is gonna drop her deadbeat Facebook friends and game the fuck out the system. If she's successful, not only is she more likely to be approved for that mortgage, but she'll get a better rate. I think it's naive to believe that any other behavior is being encouraged by this kind of predictive credit scoring. It will probably be difficult to game the system (just deleting friends doesn't remove your info and might be a red flag that you are trying to do that.) The benefits are probably small (they are using all sorts of other data on top of it to make predictions about you.) And people don't know what the algorithms are or even what information they are using, which makes it harder to figure out how to game it. But even if they do so, so what? That's their choice. The models will be readjusted to fit the new data, and the predictions will still be accurate.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Judging my creditworthiness based on the creditworthiness of my peers is akin to arresting me if half my friends had been arrested, or giving me a speeding ticket if a third of my friends had received one in the past year. It might indicate I'm more likely to be arrested or drive too fast, but I shouldn't be punished (or rewarded!) because of what other people do. What if 20% of my friends had abused prescription painkillers and I'd just had surgery. Should I be denied a prescription for painkillers because my social circle had a higher than average incidence of drug misuse? Put yourself in the situation that you're punished because of your friends' actions, or the actions of people with the same gender, race, or sexual orientation. You'd feel it's unfair (if you're rational) because it is unfair!
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    In your example that would be preemptive imprisonment if there was a greater than some probability you were a criminal. I don't like the idea of preemptive imprisonment, but if that was the case, then I don't see how adding more data to make the predictions more accurate would be a bad thing. Same thing with the second example. If there was a 99% chance of you becoming addicted to them, then you probably shouldn't be given pain killers. It would be for your own benefit by avoiding addiction. That's not a punishment, that's a good thing. >Put yourself in the situation that you're punished because of your friends' actions, or the actions of people with the same gender, race, or sexual orientation. You'd feel it's unfair (if you're rational) because it is unfair! This is the reasoning why people object to it. Humans have evolved a sense of fairness and unjustness that we react to, and usually it's a good thing that keeps society functioning. However it's an emotional response. There is no rational reason that the world would be better if we just gave loans to everyone at the same interest rate, or if we intentionally excluded useful data points from determining the risk of things.
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      > In your example that would be preemptive imprisonment if there was a greater than some probability you were a criminal. I don't like the idea of preemptive imprisonment, but if that was the case, then I don't see how adding more data to make the predictions more accurate would be a bad thing. That position is utterly untenable. It's so obviously wrong to imprison someone because some signals indicate they might commit a crime based on who they're friends with on Facebook! There's a difference between being buddies with a gaggle of career criminals and actually committing (or conspiring to commit) a crime! > If there was a 99% chance of you becoming addicted to them, then you probably shouldn't be given pain killers. If that person has a history of abusing painkillers, yes. If their friends do? C'mon, you can't possibly justify that position. > There is no rational reason that the world would be better if we just gave loans to everyone at the same interest rate I didn't argue for equal interest rates for all. It makes sense for interest rates are tied to risk, but it's only reasonable to make an assessment of risk based on an individual's performance and ability to pay, not their friends' or peers' performance. > or if we intentionally excluded useful data points from determining the risk of things. I'm not sure whether you've thought this through. Let's say, for example, it's determined by someone's payment history that they're not good at managing their money. They learn from their mistakes, improve their payment behavior, and subsequently lower their risk of default. On the other hand, what if it was determined that Asians are more likely to default on their debt. What can you do to stop being Asian? What if gay people were less likely to default on their debt and then irresponsible people who happen to be gay find it easier to get debt? Your thesis breaks down very quickly and I truly struggle to believe you agree with the position you're making. Neither one of us are making novel arguments now, but thanks for the interesting perspective and debate!

Houshalter 13y ago

>Would it be wrong to judge my creditworthiness by the fact I'm white and gay if you could find some correlation between those traits and bill paying habits? What if white gays were typically irresponsible with money† (because omg shoes) and as a consequence my credit score is forever (or at least initially) tarnished because I'm a white homo, irrespective of my bill-paying ability. I can see many ethical issues with this. Yes it seems wrong, but why does it matter what the data is if it's being used to make more accurate predictions? That's the goal. The data being used makes no difference. We aren't talking about humans which are irrational and go "omg I hate gay people and want to make them worse off by refusing to do business with them", this is an unbiased computer algorithm looking to predict how likely you are to pay back your loan. If you really are less likely to pay back your loan than so be it. It can just as easily go the other way and judge in your favor. On average you should expect to benefit from such a policy, not lose from it. >LOL. People will do a lot in the name of money. If Ms. Sally wants a mortgage, like really, really, really bad, Ms. Sally is gonna drop her deadbeat Facebook friends and game the fuck out the system. If she's successful, not only is she more likely to be approved for that mortgage, but she'll get a better rate. I think it's naive to believe that any other behavior is being encouraged by this kind of predictive credit scoring. It will probably be difficult to game the system (just deleting friends doesn't remove your info and might be a red flag that you are trying to do that.) The benefits are probably small (they are using all sorts of other data on top of it to make predictions about you.) And people don't know what the algorithms are or even what information they are using, which makes it harder to figure out how to game it. But even if they do so, so what? That's their choice. The models will be readjusted to fit the new data, and the predictions will still be accurate.

kintamanimatt 13y ago
Judging my creditworthiness based on the creditworthiness of my peers is akin to arresting me if half my friends had been arrested, or giving me a speeding ticket if a third of my friends had received one in the past year. It might indicate I'm more likely to be arrested or drive too fast, but I shouldn't be punished (or rewarded!) because of what other people do. What if 20% of my friends had abused prescription painkillers and I'd just had surgery. Should I be denied a prescription for painkillers because my social circle had a higher than average incidence of drug misuse? Put yourself in the situation that you're punished because of your friends' actions, or the actions of people with the same gender, race, or sexual orientation. You'd feel it's unfair (if you're rational) because it is unfair!
- Houshalter 13y ago
  In your example that would be preemptive imprisonment if there was a greater than some probability you were a criminal. I don't like the idea of preemptive imprisonment, but if that was the case, then I don't see how adding more data to make the predictions more accurate would be a bad thing. Same thing with the second example. If there was a 99% chance of you becoming addicted to them, then you probably shouldn't be given pain killers. It would be for your own benefit by avoiding addiction. That's not a punishment, that's a good thing. >Put yourself in the situation that you're punished because of your friends' actions, or the actions of people with the same gender, race, or sexual orientation. You'd feel it's unfair (if you're rational) because it is unfair! This is the reasoning why people object to it. Humans have evolved a sense of fairness and unjustness that we react to, and usually it's a good thing that keeps society functioning. However it's an emotional response. There is no rational reason that the world would be better if we just gave loans to everyone at the same interest rate, or if we intentionally excluded useful data points from determining the risk of things.
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    > In your example that would be preemptive imprisonment if there was a greater than some probability you were a criminal. I don't like the idea of preemptive imprisonment, but if that was the case, then I don't see how adding more data to make the predictions more accurate would be a bad thing. That position is utterly untenable. It's so obviously wrong to imprison someone because some signals indicate they might commit a crime based on who they're friends with on Facebook! There's a difference between being buddies with a gaggle of career criminals and actually committing (or conspiring to commit) a crime! > If there was a 99% chance of you becoming addicted to them, then you probably shouldn't be given pain killers. If that person has a history of abusing painkillers, yes. If their friends do? C'mon, you can't possibly justify that position. > There is no rational reason that the world would be better if we just gave loans to everyone at the same interest rate I didn't argue for equal interest rates for all. It makes sense for interest rates are tied to risk, but it's only reasonable to make an assessment of risk based on an individual's performance and ability to pay, not their friends' or peers' performance. > or if we intentionally excluded useful data points from determining the risk of things. I'm not sure whether you've thought this through. Let's say, for example, it's determined by someone's payment history that they're not good at managing their money. They learn from their mistakes, improve their payment behavior, and subsequently lower their risk of default. On the other hand, what if it was determined that Asians are more likely to default on their debt. What can you do to stop being Asian? What if gay people were less likely to default on their debt and then irresponsible people who happen to be gay find it easier to get debt? Your thesis breaks down very quickly and I truly struggle to believe you agree with the position you're making. Neither one of us are making novel arguments now, but thanks for the interesting perspective and debate!